A 
A 

0  • 
0  '■ 

0  I 
8  ! 
7  I 
6  I 

1  i 

2  i 
9  1 


Reply  to  the  i-  il'.t  oi  Li.e 
Hon.  Marcus  Morton, 


M3QNHI  Aaaids 


A    REPLY 

TO  THE  LETTER  OF 

THE  HON.  MARCUS  MORTON. 

LATE  GOVERNOR  OF  MASSACHUSETTS, 

ON 

THE  RHODE-ISLAND  QUESTION. 


BY  ONE  OF  THE  RHODE-ISLAND  PEOPLE. 


PROVIDENCE: 
PRINTED  BY  KNOWLES  AND  VOSE. 

1  8  42w 


REPLY. 


To  the  Hon.  Marcus  Morton, 

late  Governor  of  Massachusetts. 

I  HAVE  read,  Sir,  your  letter  of  27th  August  to  tlie 
clambake  "gathering"  at  Medbury  Grove. 

Your  are  an  educated  man  ;  for  several  years  you  filled 
the  important  station  of  an  Associate  Justice  of  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  Massachusetts,  and,  for  one  year,  by  a 
majority  of  one  vote,  was  elevated  to  the  Chief  Magistra- 
cy of  that  most  respectable  Commonwealth.  How  you 
could  descend  from  these  high  stations  to  the  level  of 
Slammism,  and  mingle  your  counsels  with  those  who 
have  so  much  disturbed  the  peace,  and  threatened  the  lives 
and  property  of  the  citizens  of  a  sister  State,  may  well  ex- 
cite our  surprise,  (if  anything  could  surprise  us,  in  these 
days,)  and  cannot  fail  to  kindle  in  the  breast  of  every 
true   son  of  Rhode  Island  the  strongest  indignation. 

But  the  problem  is  solved.  You  have  been  nominated 
for  that  office  for  which  you  were  a  partisan  candidate, 
year  after  year,  whilst  you  were  clothed  with  the  ermine 
of  justice,  and  which  it  was  your  nr.isfortune  to  obtain  for 
a  brief  period,  and  only  long  enough  to  lose  the  highly 
honorable  and  more  permanent  station  you  were  obliged 
to  relinquish.  You  are  now  seeking  to  regain  a  j)ortion 
of  what  you  lost,  and  are  striving  to  make  some  political 
capital  out  of  the  troubles  of  Rhode  Island. 

You  would  impress  us  with  the  belief,  that  in  thus  in- 
terfering with  the  internal  concerns  of  Rhode  Island,  you 
are  actuated  only  by  a  sacred  regard  for  principle.     If  you 


can  practise  this  deception  on  youisclf,  you  will  not  de- 
ceive those  who  look  beyond  professions,  and  judge  of 
men  by  tiieir  fruits. 

You  say,  "no  man  has  interfered  less  in  the  recent  af- 
fairs of  Rhode  Island"  than  yourself;  and  you  ^'tnisl  you 
have  been  an  impartial  ohsGiVQX  of  passing  events,"  though 
not  "an  indifferent  one."  How  much  you  have  interfered 
in  our  affairs,  is  best  known  to  yourself.  Your  attendance, 
as  one  of  the  "  orators  of  the  human  race,"  at  the  Somer- 
set "gathering,"  was  caused,  no  doubt,  by  the  anticipa- 
ted nomination,  which  has  since  been  made,  and  your 
letter  refutes  all  your  professions  of  impartiality. 

It  may  be,  Sir,  that  you  were  as  indifferent  to  the  first 
movements  in  Rhode  Island,  in  relation  to  suffrage,  as 
were  some  of  your  party  in  that  State,  who  were  lookers 
on,  until  they  thought  something  could  be  gained  by  urg- 
ing it  on  to  revolution.  They  have  since  manifested,  that 
it  was  not  the  extension  of  suftVage,  but  a  most  unprinci- 
pled contest  for  power,  which  induced  them  to  raise  the 
whirlwind,  in  hopes  of  being  able  to  direct  the  storm. 
If  the  extension  of  suiTrage,  as  originally  intended  by  the 
Suffrage  Association,  had  been  their  sole  object,  they  would 
not  have  rejected  that  Constitution  by  which  suffrage  was 
so  liberally  extended,  and  they  would  have  accepted  the 
very  liberal  basis  upon  which  another  Convention  was 
called,  and  would  have  united  with  their  fellow  citizens 
in  this  measure  of  peace  and  conciliation. 

Read,  Sir,  the  history  of  the  Rhode  Island  suffrage  ques- 
tion, by  Mr.  J.  Frieze,  recently  published  in  Providence, 
who  wrote  from  knowledge  and  not  from  hearsay,  being 
himself  a  suffrage  man,  and  you  will  behold  the  true  mo- 
tives of  the  politicians  on  this  subject. 

Their  object  and  yours,  I  fear,  is  the  same — power, 
power.  The  lust  of  office  and  of  power  has  ever  proved 
the  greatest  enemy  of  human  rights.  Such  is  the  lesson 
of  history,  and  what  is  passing  before  us,  shows  that  we 


are  not  free  from  the  evils  wliirh  have  caused  the  down- 
fall of  so  many  republics. 

After  attempting  to  persuade  us  that  you  are  an  imjiar- 
tial  judge  of  the  Rhode  Island  controversy,  and  that  your 
interest  in  the  same  arises  solely  from  principle,  you  pro- 
ceed to  state,  in  a  manner  that  betrays  the  feelings  of  a 
partisan,  the  nature  of  this  controversy,  and  then  say  : 
"  This  has  assumed  a  party  character,  and  may  be  consid- 
ered indicative  of  the  political  principles  of  the  two  great 
parties  into  which  our  country  is  divided."' 

Thank  God,  many  of  the  most  respectable  of  that  party 
in  Rhode  Island,  who  supported  Mr.  Van  Buren,  felt  their 
attachment  to  their  State  stronger  than  their  attachment 
to  party,  and  nobly  came  forth  in  defence  of  law,  order  and 
government.  Such  men  now  compose  a  majority  of  the 
Senate  of  the  State,  and  many  of  them  are  foiuid  in  the 
House  of  Representatives.  This  ought  to  lead  you  to 
doubt,  whether  you  are  correctly  informed  as  to  the  facts 
and  principles  connected  with  this  controversy. 

But  you  are  doing  all  you  can  to  make  this  a  party 
question,  in  Massachusetts,  and  would  thereby  prevent 
that  impartial  judgment,  in  reference  to  our  affairs,  which 
you  well  know  is  not  to  be  expected  in  matters  of  ])arty 
controversy.  In  this  you  do  us  much  wrong,  and  of  this 
we  have  a  right  to  complain. 

But  how  can  you  deem  yourself  an  impartial  judge  of 
a  controversy,  which,  in  your  view,  has  assumed  a  ])arty 
character,  you  yourself  being  the  candidate  of  one  party 
for  the  chief  magistracy  of  Massachusetts^  and  attending 
one  clam  bake,  and  writing  a  letter  to  another,  to  excite 
the  sympathies  of  Massachusetts  men  against  the  govern- 
ment of  Rhode  Island,  in  order  to  facilitate  your  own  ele- 
vation !  We  might  as  well  expect  gra[jes  from  thorns,  or 
figs  from  thistles,  as  impartiality  under  such  circum- 
stances. 

You  commence  your  statement  of  the  Rhode  Island 
controversy,  with  the  following  sentence  : 


6 

"  The  people  of  Rhode  Island,  acting  in  their  original 
sovereign  capacity,  without  the  aid  of  governmental  regu- 
lation, but  in  a  peaceable  manner,  and  with  all  the  for- 
mality which  the  circumstances  would  admit,  called  a 
convention,  founded  on  an  equal  representation  of  their 
numbers,  to  form  a  Constitution  for  their  adoption  or 
rejection." 

What  do  you  mean  by  "  the  people  of  Rhode  Island," 
in  this  sentence  ?  Do  you  mean  that  the  luhole  people  of 
Rhode  Island,  acting  in  their  original  sovereign  capacity, 
called  a  convention  ?  This,  you  must  know,  is  not  true. 
Do  you  mean  that  a  majority  of  the  people  of  Rhode 
Island  called  this  convention  ?  If  you  have  been  the  at- 
tentive observer  you  say  you  have  been,  you  must  know 
that  this  is  not  true.  There  was  not  a  majority  of  the 
people,  in  any  sense,  that  called  that  convention. 

Now,  Sir,  I  should  like  to  know,  by  what  authority  a 
Tninority  of  the  people  can  undertake  to  act,  or  can  act, 
in  their  original  sovei'eign  capacity  ?  And  if  they  can, 
how  far,  Sir,  does  their  sovereignty  extend  ?  And  by 
what  authority  did  a  minority  of  the  male  population  over 
twenty-one  years  of  age,  and  a  very  small  minority,  call 
a  convention  in  opposition  to  the  convention  which  had 
already  been  called  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State?  Does 
the  democratic  principle  furnish  a  satisfactory  answer  to 
these  questions  ? 

If  it  be  true  that  a  majority  of  the  people  have  a  right, 
at  their  own  will  and  pleasure,  to  throw  oil  their  allegiance 
to  the  government,  and  to  "act  in  their  original  sovereign 
capacity,"  which  I  do  not  admit,  have  the  minority 
the  same  right  ?  If  not,  then  at  the  very  commence- 
ment of  your  statement,  we  have  already  discovered  two 
errors,  the  one  of  fact  and  the  other  of  principle.  It  is  not 
true  that  "  the  jjcople  of  Rhode  Island  called  this  conven- 
tion," and  it  is  not  true  that  those  who  did  call  it  "  acted 
in  their  original  sovereign  capacity. 

But  we   are  accustomed  to  hear   such   language   from 


gentlemen  of  your  democratic  profession.  You  seem  to 
think  that  you  are  emphatically  the  people,  and  that  there 
are  none  beside  you,  and  that  any  small  portion  of  you, 
wherev^er  collected,  have  a  right  to  speak  and  act  in  the 
name  of  the  "  sovereign"  people  ! 

The  next  sentence  conveys  a  meaning  which  is  no 
nearer  the  truth. 

You  say,  "  the  people  of  Rhode  Island,  6cc.,  called  a 
convention  founded  on  an  equal  representation  of  their 
numbers,  to  form  a  constitution  for  their  adoption  or  re- 
jection. This  convention  performed  the  duty  required 
of  it."  I  understand  by  this,  that  you  mean  to  convey 
the  meaning  that  a  convention,  thus  called,  and  in  which 
the  people  were  not  only  represented,  but  ^^  eijually  re- 
presented,''^ met  and  formed  what  you  are  also  pleased  to 
call  "  the  people's  constitution."  The  truth  is,  that  a 
majority  of  the  people  were  not  represented  at  all  in  this 
convention,  much  less  ^^  equally  represented.^' 

Those  who  chose  delegates  to  this  convention,  acted 
under  no  legal  authority,  and  had  no  authority  to  speak 
or  act  for  any  but  themselves.  If  they  acted,  to  use  your 
language,  "in  their  original  sovereign  capacity,"  they 
still  acted  only  for  themselves;  and  those  whom  they 
chose,  to  act  as  delegates,  had  no  authority  to  represent 
any  but  those  who  chose  them.  These  delegates  were 
chosen  by  less  than  eight  thousand  votes,  about  seven 
thousand  two  hundred,  not  more  than  one  third  of  the 
male  population  over  twenty-one  years  of  age.  Yet  this 
convention  called  itself  "  the  People's  Convention,"  and 
the  result  of  their  doings  they  christened  "  the  People's 
Constitution  y 

Such  was  the  origin  of  "  the  People's  Constitution," 
and  its  progress  was  in  the  same  spirit.  Those  who  had 
the  assurance  to  go  thus  far  in  the  name  of  the  jieople, 
were  determined  to  complete  their  work.  In  this  small 
State,  they  deemed  it  necessary  that  the  voting  upon  its 
adoption  should   go  on  for  six  days!     On   the  first   three 


8 

days,  tlie  people  were  to  hand  m  their  votes  to  tlieir  mod- 
erators, but,  on  the  last  three  days,  votes  might  be  collect- 
ed by  any  jjerson  who  had  voted,  in  any  place,  in  any 
nnmbers,  and  by  him  handed  to  their  moderators,  with 
no  other  clieck  than  signing  his  own  name  upon  such  votes 
as  a  witness.  Here  was  room  enough  for  fraud,  and  for 
the  voting  of  the  same  person,  again  and  again  ;  for,  in 
voting,  no  one  was  confined  to  the  town  in  which  he  liv- 
ed. And  how  could  the  moderators  judge  whether  the 
votes  which  were  thus  brought  in  to  them,  contained  the 
names  of  real  or  fictitious  persons,  or  whether,  if  real,  they 
were  signed  by  these  persons?  In  Newport,  it  is  said, 
that  the  graveyards  were  ransacked  for  names  to  give  to 
the  returns  some  semblance  of  truth!  When  the  tomb 
stones  failed,  imagination  was  drawn  upon,  and  the  re- 
turns exhibit  the  names  of  those  who  were  never  heard  of 
before,  and  have  not  been  seen  since.  More  than  one  third 
of  the  votes  returned  from  that  town  have  been  discover- 
ed to  be  fraudulent.*  The  history  of  this  matter  has  never 
been  fully  told.  All,  however  must  know  that  such  a  ma- 
chine for  fraud  never  would  have  been  contrived,  if  it  had 
not  been  intended  to  put  it  in  operation.  Men  would  not 
gratuitously  have  subjected  themselves  to  the  imputation 
of  opening  the  door  so  widely  to  fraud,  if  they  had  not 
been  conscious  that  frauds  were  necessary  to  crown  their 
labors,  and  finish  their  work,  in  the  name  of  the  people. 

In  this  way,  the  requisite  number  of  votes  was  returned 
and  counted  by  this  "  People's  Convention,''^  and  the 
Constitution  declared  by  them  to  be  the  supreme  law  of 
the  land. 

Is  so  solemn  an  instrument  as  a  Constitution  of  Govern- 
ment to  be  thus  formed,  thus  proposed,  and  thus  imposed 
upon  the  people  of  a  State  ?  We  all  know  what  would  be 
the  answer  of  the  people  of  Massachusetts,  if  such  a  fraud 
had  been  attempted  upon  them,  and  they  may  well  under- 

*  See  the  Pamphlet  of  Elisha  R.  Potter,  Esq.     App.  No.  4,  page  57. 


stand  that  the  people  of  Rhode  Island  are  as  little  \villin£>  to 
submit  to  pretensions  winch  they  well  know  are  as  un- 
founded in  fact,  as  they  are  monstrous  in  principle. 

Yet,  Sir.  you  have  the  boldness  to  say,  this  Constitu- 
tion "  was  adopted  by  the  votes  of  a  large  majority  of  all 
the  adult  male  population  of  the  State."  And  in  another 
part  of  your  letter,  you  say  : 

*'  Let  it  not  be  denied  that  a  majority  of  all  the  people 
voted  for  the  Constitution.  The  returns  shew  about 
three  fifths.  They  have  been  in  the  power  of  the  oppo- 
nents of  the  new  Constitution." 

"  Let  it  not  be  denied  .''^  This,  Sir,  is  arrogance  itself! 
By  what  authority  do  you  place  your  veto  upon  us,  and 
deny  to  us  the  right  to  deny  what  you  have  had  the  bold- 
ness to  assert  without  any  legal  evidence  ?  '•  The  re- 
turns ? "  Are  we  to  be  concluded  by  such  returns,  made 
under  no  legal  sanctions  ;  if  false,  subjecting  no  one  to 
any  legal  penalties,  and  made  by  those  who,  if  honest 
themselves,  were  in  a  situation,  for  three  days  and  more, 
to  be  imposed  upon  by  the  dishonesty  of  others,  without 
the  means  of  detecting  it  ?  Returns  made  by  those  and 
counted  by  those  who  had  ev^ery  thing  at  stake  in  the 
shape  of  political  power,  who  had  the  management  of 
every  thing  to  themselves,  and  who  had  pre-determined 
that  their  Constitution  should  be  the  people's  Constitu- 
tion !     And  are  our  mouths  to  be  stopped  by  such  returns  ? 

But  you  say  these  returns  •'  have  been  in  the  ])OWpr  of 
the  opponents  of  the  new  Constitution."  Do  you  know 
what  you  say,  and  whereof  you  aflirm  ? 

It  is  true.  Sir,  that  the  Suffrage  Convention,  just  before, 
their  dissolution,  authorised  their  Secretaries  "  to  copy 
any  part  of  the  registry  of  said  votes  or  the  votes  them- 
selves, upon  the  application  of  any  pcrsuny  But  it  is 
also  true  that,  in  a  short  time  afterwards,  the  Sulfrage  As- 
sociation annulled  this  resolution  ! 

Before  this  was  done,  copies  of  the  list  of  votes,  in 
2 


10 

?ome  of  ihe  towns,  had  been  obtainod,  and  such  frauds- 
discovered,  that  it  may  have  been  thought  most  prudent 
to  close  the  avenue  to  all  further  inquiry. 

But  if  this  large  majority  ever  existed,  as  you,  in  your 
impartiality,  are  so  willing  to  believe  it  did,  what  has  be- 
come of  it?  In  the  voting  for  and  against  the  Constitu- 
tion framed  and  proposed  by  the  legal  Convention,  under 
a  system  of  suffrage  as  extended  in  relation  to  native  born 
American  citizens  as  that  under  the  Suffrage  Constitution, 
except  that  the  former  reqaired  one  year's  longer  resi- 
dence in  the  State,  the  friends  of  the  latter,  thougli  they 
rallied  all  their  force,  were  found  in  the  minority.  It  was 
only  by  the  aid  of  those  who  were  opposed  to  both  Con- 
stitutions, that  the  legally  proposed  Constitution  was  de- 
feated by  a  majority  of  676. 

In  the  voting  under  the  Suffrage  Constitution  for  Gov- 
ernor and  Senators,  but  6,500  votes  were  given. 

The  result,  too,  of  the  attempt  to  enforce  the  Suffrage 
Constitution  by  a  resort  to  force,  plainly  shows  the  senti- 
ments of  the  real  people  of  Rhode  Island. 

You  say,  in  reference  to  the  voting  on  the  Suffrage 
Constitution : 

"Doubtless  errors  were  committed,  but  they  have  not 
been  pointed  out ;  and  it  would  be  unreasonable  to  sup- 
pose that  they  existed  to  the  extent  of  the  thousands 
which  composed  the  majority.  Besides,  it  is  a  common 
presumption  that  those  who  omit  to  vote  intend  to  ac- 
quiesce in  the  decision  of  those  who  choose  to  exercise 
that  right.  And  this  is  believed  to  be  the  first  instance 
in  which  a  majority  of  all  the  qualified  voters  ever  was 
required,  or  obtained,  in  favor  of  any  Constitution.  If  a 
majority  of  all  the  people  were  opposed  to  the  adoption  of 
the  new  Constitution,  why  did  they  not  turn  out  and  re- 
ject it  ?" 

Your  zeal,  in  behalf  of  the  Rhode  Island  revolution- 
ists, has  carried  you  beyond  what  they  were  satisfied  was 
correct.     They  acted  upon  the  principle  that  a  bare  ma- 


jority  of  those  who  voted,  was  not  sufricicnt  for  their  pur- 
pose, and  in  this  were  more  consistent  than  yourself. 
You  say,  the  people  acted  in  their  "  original  sovereign 
capacity ^''^  and  so  they  pretended  ;  they,  therefore,  were 
more  consistent  than  yourself  in  believing  that,  to  estab- 
lish their  constitution,  it  was  necessary  to  obtain  the 
votes  of  a  majority  of  the  whole  people  who,  according 
to  their  theory,  had  the  natural  right  of  voting. 

You  have  overlooked,  in  your  desire  to  establish  the 
Suifrage  Constitution,  the  principle  upon  which  you 
started — the  "  act  of  the  people  of  Rhode  Island,  in 
their  original  sovereign  capacity."  In  voting  under  the 
sanction  of  law,  and  a  regular  government,  it  is  very  true 
that  a  majority  of  those  who  vote  may  be  all  that  is  ne- 
cessary, and  usually  it  is  all  that  is  required  ;  those  who 
are  present,  and  act,  are  authorised,  by  the  compact  of 
government,  and  the  law,  to  bind  those  who  are  absent, 
or  who  do  not  act.  But  when  men  act  in  then-  "  or/^'-i- 
?m/ sovereign  capacity,"  by  what  law  do  you  detcrniinc 
"  the  qualified  voters  ?"  When  they  act  in  this  capacity, 
they  can  act  for  none  but  themselves;  they  can  bind 
none  but  themselves;  society  is  then  resolved  into  its 
original  elements  ;  a  new  compact  is  then  to  be  formed 
which  is  binding  only  upon  those  who  agree  to  it  ;  if  this 
ncAv  compact  is  attempted  to  be  enforced  upon  those  who 
do  not  agree  to  it,  they  have  a  right  to  resist  it,  and  this 
brings  every  thing  to  the  test  of  force,  and  this  is  revo- 
lution. 

Man  acting  in  his  ''on^^wmZ  capacity,"  is  '^  sovercig7i" 
only  over  himself.  If,  in  this  capacity,  he  undertakes  to 
exercise  sovereignty  over  another  without  his  consent,  he 
may  be  lawfully  resisted,  and  the  union  of  many,  acting 
m  this  capacilij,  cannnot  give  to  the  mass  a  right  which 
none  of  them  individually  possessed — the  right  of  exer- 
cising power  over  others,  equally  free  with  themselves,  to 
which  they  have  never  expressly  or  impliedly  assented. 

Your  absurdity,  therefore,  is  this  :   you  resolve  society 


li 

m  Rhode  Island  i-nto  its  original  elements  ;  you  decide 
that  the  people  there  acted  in  their  ^^  original  capacity," 
and  before  the  formation  of  a  new  social  compact,  you 
claim  for  a  majority  of  the  male  population  over  twenty- 
one  years  of  age  the  right  to  govern  all  the  rest  !  Your 
absurdity  goes  farther  than  this  ;  you  would  gi\  e  this  right, 
under  such  circumstances,  to  a  ininority  of  the  people,  if 
they  are  a  majority  of  those  who  assume  to  themselves 
the  right  to  vote  upon  such  a  question  !  And  this  power 
you  would  confer  on  such  a  minority  by  virtue  of  their 
^^  sovereign  capacity  !" 

Sovereignty  comes  by  compact  or  by  force.  There 
was  no  compact  in  Rhode  Island  which  gave  to  those 
who  voted  for  the  Suffrage  Constitution  the  right  to  im- 
pose it  on  the  State,  even  if  they  were  the  majority  you 
pretend.  The  setting  up  of  such  a  right  against  the  estab- 
lished government  was  necessarily  an  appeal  to  force. 
You  set  up  this  right,  and  yet  pretend  to  deprecate  an 
appeal  to  "  the  God  of  battles."'  We  have  much  reason 
to  believe  that  if  those  men  whose  cause  you  advocate 
had  succeeded  in  their  appeal  to  arms,  you  would  have  been 
as  ready  to  interpret  in  their  behalf  the  Vox  Dei,  as  you 
now  are  the  Vox  Populi. 

You  very  formally  state  three  "  great  principles,  oppo- 
sition to  which  (you  say)  is  implied  in  opposition  to  the 
People's  Constitution."     They  are, 

"  I.  The  right  of  the  people  to  govern  themselves,  and 
to  establish  their  own  forms  of  government. 

II.  Free  Suffrage. 

III.  Equality  of  representation." 

These,  you  say,  "are  the  vital  principles  of  government, 
which  the  one  party  is  supposed  to  maintain,  and  the  oth- 
er to  deny." 

You  take  the  liberty.  Sir,  to  suppose  and  to  impute 
many  things  which  are  not  true. 

I  have  never  heard  any  body  deny  "  the  right  of  the 
people  to  govern  themselves,  and   to  establish  their  own 


18 

form  of  government."  AVo  claim  for  iho  people  of  Rhode 
Island  tiiis  right,  and  we  iiave  just  reason  to  complain 
that  so  many  of  the  citizens,  and  some  of  the  Governors 
and  would-be  Governors  of  other  States,  have  assumed  the 
right  to  decide  for  us,  what  we  have  the  right  of  deciding 
for  ourselves. 

We  say  that  the  people  of  Rhode  Island  established, 
for  themselves,  a  democratic  form  of  government,  under 
which  they  have  lived,  from  the  days  of  Roger  Williams, 
and  Clarke,  and  Coddington,  to  the  present.  And  if  you 
wish  to  know  how  well  they  prospered  under  it,  and  how 
much  liberty  they  enjoyed,  I  will  refer  you  to  the  iiistory 
of  Mr.  Bancroft,  written  when  he  was  a  more  impartial 
judge  of  our  aftairs  than  he  now  appears  to  be. 

You  add  your  voice  to  the  slang  which  has  been  utter- 
ed in  reference  to  that  Charter  which  yet  remains  the  basis 
of  our  Constitution,  and  exclaim, — "  One  man  grant  rights 
to  millions  !  Liberties  depending  on  the  Charter  of  a 
King  !" 

This  may  do  very  well.  Sir,  for  a  clam  bake,  but  it  comes 
with  a  very  bad  grace  from  a  late  Justice  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Massachusetts ! 

Did  the  people  of  Rhode  Island  ever  pretend  that  thcu* 
rights  were  granted  by  one  man,  or  were  dependent  upon 
the  Charter  of  a  King?  You  are  either  very  ill  read  in 
our  history,  or  not  very  well  disposed  to  do  us  justice. 

The  Charter  which,  so  far  as  it  goes,  is  our  written 
Constitution  of  government,  did  not  originaUy  derive  all 
its  authority  from  the  crown.  The  King  had  no  right  to 
force  his  Charter  upon  any  body  without  their  consent.  If 
the  people  of  Rhode  Island  had  not  consented  to  this  Char- 
ter, and  accepted  the  same  as  their  Constitution  of  govern- 
ment, it  could  not  have  been  imposed  upon  them.  It  was 
granted  to  the  people  of  Rhode  island  at  their  request,  and 
was  accepted  by  them,  at  a  great  meeting  of  the  freemen  of 
the  colony,  after  it  was  granted.  When  they  accepted  it. 
they  agreed  with  each   other,   and  they  agreed  with  th«' 


14 

King,  to  accept  of  it  as  their  internal  form  of  government. 
Because  the  King  was  a  party  to  this  instrument,  it  was 
none  the  less  binding  upon  the  people  as  their  social  com- 
pact, made  with  each  other,  with  the  consent  and  grant 
of  the  King.  When  the  people  of  Rhode  Island,  by  their 
delegates  in  Congress,  declared  their  independence,  did 
they  suppose  that  they  thereby  aimullcd  their  Charter  as 
a  compact  of  government,  made  with  each  other?  Such 
a  supposition  is  contrary  to  all  their  acts  during  the  war 
of  the  revolution,  and  since.  These  very  delegates  were 
chosen  by  the  General  Assembly  under  the  Charter. 

The  people  of  this  State  never  considered  the  Charter 
as  annulled  by  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  but  only 
the  authority  of  the  crown  ;  that  portion  of  the  sovereign- 
ty which  the  crown  had  a  right  to  exercise  over  them, 
under  the  Charter,  was  gone,  but  their  agreement  with 
each  other  remained.  The  powers  of  self-government 
which  they  had,  previously  to  the  Declaration  of  Indepen- 
dence, in  conformity  with  this  social  compact,  now  became 
absolute  and  independent  of  all  foreign  control,  and  have 
ever  since  been  exercised  by  the  people  of  Rhode  Island 
in  conformity  to  the  Charter,  as  their  compact  or  Constitu- 
tion of  government.  Under  this  form  of  government, 
Rhode  Island  adopted  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  has  been  since  represented  in  the  Senate  and 
House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States,  for  nearly 
half  a  century,  the  Senators  being  chosen  by  the  Legisla- 
ture, which  we  are  now  told  has  no  authority  except  un- 
der a  charter,  which  was  annulled  by  the  Declaration  of 
Independence.  What  next  are  we  to  learn,  in  this  age  of 
progress,  will  no  doubt  very  much  depend  upon  that  ne- 
cessity which  is  the  mother  of  invention. 

The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  when  they 
shall  have  the  benefit  of  this  new  light,  will  no  doubt  re- 
verse their  own  decision.  In  the  case  of  Leland  vs.  Wil- 
kinson (2  Peters,  S.  C.  R.  page  656)  they  say  :  "Rhode 
Island  is  the  only  State  in  the  Union   which  has  not  a 


15 

written  Constitution  of  government,  containing  its  funda- 
mental laws  and  institutions.  Until  the  revolution  in 
1776,  it  was  governed  by  the  Charter  granted  by  Charles 
II,  in  the  fifteenth  year  of  his  reign.  That  Charter  has 
since  continued,  in  its  general  provisions,  U)  regulalr  the 
exercise  and  distribution  of  the  powers  of  govcrtimoit.  It 
has  never  been  formally  abrogated  by  the  people  ;  and  ex- 
cept so  far  as  it  has  been  modified  to  meet  the  exigencies  of 
the  revolution,  may  be  considered  as  now  a  fundamental 
law.  By  this  Charter,  the  power  to  make  laws  is  granted 
to  the  General  Assembly  in  the  most  ample  manner,  so  as 
such  laws,  &c.  be  not  contrary  and  repugnant  unto,  but  as 
near  as  may  be  agreeable  to  the  laws,  &:.c.  of  England, 
considering  the  nature  and  constitution  of  the  place  and 
people  there." 

You  say  :  "  The  several  charters  never  contemplated 
the  establishment  of  independent  governments,  and  nev- 
er authorised  the  charter  officers  to  take  any  step  towards 
the  formation  of  democratic  constitutions." 

Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut  already  had  democratic 
constitutions  under  their  charters.  On  the  declaration  of 
Independence,  there  was  no  necessity  for  them  to  form 
new  constitutions,  as  in  Massachusetts,  and  those  States 
where  the  Governors  were  appointed  by  the  Crown.  Mr, 
Rawle,  on  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  page  9, 
says  :  "  The  provincial  Constitutions  of  America  were, 
with  two  exceptions,  modelled  with  some  conformity  to 
the  English  theory  ;  but  the  colonists  of  Rhode  Island  and 
Providence  Plantations  were  empowered  to  choose  all  their 
officers,  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial,  aiul  about  the 
same  time  a  similar  charter  was  granted  to  Connecticut. 
And  thus,  complains  Chalmers,  a  writer  devoted  to  regal 
principles,  'A  mere  democracy,  or  rule  of  the  people,  was 
established.  Every  power,  deliberative  and  active,  was  in- 
vested in  the  freemen  or  their  delegates,  and  the  supreme 
executive  magistrate  of  the  empire,  by  an  inattention 
which  does   little  honor  to  the  statesmen  of  those  days. 


10 

was  wholly  excluded."  He  expresses  his  own  doubts 
whether  the  King  had  a  right  to  grant  such  charters." 

"  But  although  in  all  the  other  provinces,"  Mr.  Rawle 
continues,  "  the  charters  were  originally  granted,  or  sub- 
sequently modified,  so  as  to  exclude  the  principle  of  rep- 
resention  from  the  executive  department,  these  two  prov- 
inces, at  the  time  of  our  revolution,  retained  it  undimin- 
ished. The  suggestion  of  the  full  unqualified  extension 
of  the  principle  of  representation,  may  therefore  be  just- 
ly attributed  to  the  example  of  Rhode  Island  and  Con- 
necticut, which,  when  conv^erted  into  States,  found  it  un- 
necessary to  altei-  the  nature  of  their  governments,  and 
continued  the  same  forms  in  all  respects  except  the  nomi- 
nal recognition  of  the  king's  authority,  till  1818,  when 
Connecticut  made  some  minor  changes,  and  adopted  a 
formal  Constitution.  Rhode  Island,  however,  is  still  sat- 
isfied with  the  Charter  of  Charles  II.,  from  which  it  has 
been  found  sufficient  to  expunge  the  reservation  of  alle- 
giance, the  required  conformity  of  its  legislative  acts  to 
those  of  Great  Britain,  and  the  royal  right  to  a  certain 
portion  of  gold  and  silver  ores,  which,  happily  for  that 
State,  have  never  been  found  within  it." 

You  further  say  ;  "  It  will  not  be  pretended  that  the 
Rhode  Island  Charter  conferred  upon  the  legislature  the 
power  to  propose  a  Constitution  or  to  call  a  Convention 
for  the  purpose."  Why  not  ?  You  do  not  seem  to  be 
well  acquainted  with  the  Rhode  Island  Charter,  and  have 
probably  taken  this  matter  on  trust. 

The  Rhode  Island  Charter  contains,  among  other  enu- 
merated powers  granted  to  the  General  Assembly,  the 
following:  "and,  from  time  to  time,  to  make,  ordain, 
constitute  or  repeal,  such  laws,  statutes,  orders  and  ordi- 
nances, forms  and  ceremonies  of  government  and  magis- 
tracy, as  to  them  shall  seem  meet,  for  the  good  and  wel- 
fare of  the  said  Company,  and  for  the  government  and 
ordering  of  the  lands  and  hereditaments,  hereinafter  men- 
tioned to  be  granted,  and  of  the  people  that  do,  or  at  any 


17 

time  hereafter  shall,  inhabit  or  In-  uitliin  lite  same;  so  as 
sucl)  laws,  ordinances  and  ronstitulioiis,  so  made,  be  not 
contrary  and  repugnant  unto,  but  as  near  as  may  bo, 
agreeable  to  the  laws  of  this  our  realm  of  England,  con- 
sidering the  nature  and  constitution  of  the  ]tlaceand  peo- 
ple there." 

If  the  Legislature  of  Rhode  Island  had  the  jiowcr  to 
"make,  ordain,  and  consutuw  foi'ms  of  government,'^  and 
^^  constitutions,''^  under  certain  restrictions,  these  restric- 
tions, beginning,  in  the  above  recited  clause,  with  the 
words — "  so  that,''  were  done  away  by  the  declaration 
of  Independence,  and  left  the  power  of  the  Legislature 
unrestrained  by  the  Charter  in  this  respect.  If  the  Legis- 
lature possessed  the  greater  power,  to  form  a  Constitution, 
they  possessed  the  lesser  powers  contained  within  tho 
greater,  the  power  to  propose  a  Constitution  to  the  people, 
or  to  call  a  Convention  for  the  purpose  of  framing  a  Con- 
stitution to  be  proposed  to  the  people.  If  the  Charter 
had  not  contained  the  above  provision,  unless  the  Charter 
prohibited  the  General  Assembly  from  the  exercise  of  this 
power,  it  belonged  to  them  since  the  revolution,  as  inci- 
dental to  the  legislative  power. 

The  power  of  making  "such  laws  as  to  them  shall 
seem  meet  for  the  good  and  welfare  of  the  State,  in- 
cludes the  power  of  providing  for  the  call  of  a  Conven- 
tion of  the  delegates  of  the  people  to  form  a  Constitution, 
and  of  making  those  regulations  which  may  be  necessa- 
ry for  taking  the  sense  of  the  people  ujkmi  the  Constitu- 
tion which  might  be  proposed  to  them,  and  carrying  the 
same  into  effect.  This  power  the  Legislature  of  Rhode 
Island  exercised  in  calling  that  Convention  which  adopt- 
ed, in  the  name  of  the  people  of  Rliode  Island,  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States. 

You  have  resorted  to  this  argument,  borrowed  from  a 
Rhode  Island  man,  to  justify  the  assumption  of  power  on 
the  part  of  those  who  called  that  Convention  which 
3 


18 

Iramed  what   tlicy  chose  to  call  "  the  People's  Constitu- 
tion." 

Bat  is  it  a  necessary  inference  that,  because  there  is  no 
written  provision  -which  gives  to  a  government  the  power 
of  reforming  its  Constitntion,  it  has  no  power  to  do 
any  thing  in  this  respect  ?  Is  not  this  power  necessarily 
incidental  to  every  government.  Revolution  and  reform 
are  in  their  nature  very  distinct.  Revolution  comes  from 
without,  and  overturns  government,  but  reform  originates 
with  or  is  consummated  by  the  government.  If,  there- 
fore, every  government  must  necessarily  liave  within 
itself  the  power  of  originating  or  sanctioning  reform, 
where  docs  it  exist  ?  Not  in  the  judiciary,  nor  in  the 
Executive,  but  in  that  legislative  power  which  can  com- 
mand what  is  right  and  expedient,  and  prohibit  what  is 
wrong. 

You  farther  say  :  "  But  the  assumption  that  the  Legis- 
lature alone  can  initiate  proceedings  for  the  formation  of 
a  Constitution,  and  that  none  can  be  formed  without  their 
consent  and  preliminary  action,  seems  to  me  to  be  found- 
ed in  the  most  palpable  usurpation  ;"  and  you  close  the 
paragraph  in  which  this  sentence  is  found,  after  endeavor- 
ing to  frighten  us  with  the  doctrine  of  the  dark  ages, 
with  the  following  :  "  Will  the  American  people,  or  the 
friends  of  free  government,  any  where,  acknowledge,  the 
principle  that  the  people  can  only  make  or  amend  their 
Constitutions  by  the  permission  of  their  rulers?^' 

And  in  a  former  part  of  your  letter  you  say:  "But 
what  are  the  forms  prescribed  to  regulate  the  action  of  the 
people  in  the  exercise  of  their  highest  sovereign  power? 
Who  can  establish  forms  to  govern  their  proceedings?" 

This  is  very  specious,  and  no  doubt  very  flattering  to 
those  who  are  disposed  to  consider  all  legal  restraints  as 
so  many  infringements  upon  liberty. 

Who  shall  question  the  prerogative  of  the  king?  said 
the  courtiers  of  Charles  I.,  and  their  flatteries  cost  the 
king  his  crown  and  his  head. 


19 

Who  shall  question  the  power  of  the  people?  say  the 
demagogues  of  our  day,  as  they  said  in  former  days,  and 
as  we  fear  they  will  continue  to  say,  until  licentiousness 
shall  destroy  all  the  security  and  liajjpiness  of  regidated 
liberty. 

Whom,  Sir,  do  you  call  the  "  ru/t-rs"  of  the  people  in 
this  country  ?  Those  who,  for  a  short  period,  by  the  free 
choice  of  the  people,  are  entrusted  with  certain  powers,  to 
be  exercised  for  the  public  good,  and  who  are  governed 
by  the  same  laws  which  they  enact  lor  the  connnunity? 
We  have  been  in  the  habit  of  calling  such  men  our  ser- 
vants, and  not  our  '^  rulers.'^ 

But  there  is  one  sovereign  to  which  we  all  have  hith- 
erto professed  to  owe  obedience.  There  is  one  power 
which  ought  to  govern  the  people.  It  is  the  sovereignty 
of  the  law,   '-the  State's  collected  will." 

If  the  doctrine  is  to  prevail,  that  the  majority,  fur  the 
time  being,  may  act  their  pleasura,  and  that  they  are 
above  the  law,  there  will  be  an  end  to  all  constitutional 
freedom.  Constitutions  have  been  considered,  in  this 
country,  as  the  great  security  of  persons  and  property, 
giving  to  minorities  and  individuals  a  protection  from  the 
power  of  a  factious  majority.  In  many  of  the  State  Con- 
stitutions, it  has  been  provided  that  a  larger  number  than 
a  majority  should  be  necessary  for  their  amendment. 
This  secures  individuals  from  oppression,  and  the  State 
from  the  evils  of  perpetual  change.  In  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  this  principle  is  carried  very  far, 
and  the  small  States  are  thereby  protected  against  the 
power  and  ambition  of  the  large  .States,  and  secured  an 
equal  representation  in  the  Senate. 

But  this  new  ^'  democraticaf.  pn'n'^iple^'  levels  all  legal 
and  constitutional  barriers,  and  exposes  all  things  and  all 
persons  to  the  ruling  demagogue  of  the  day.  INIajoriiies, 
real  or  pretended,  will  iind  all  things  lawful  and  all 
things  expedient,  and  should  they  be  fettered  by  Consti- 
tutions, or  forms  of  government,  they  have  only  to  re- 


20 

solve  themselves  into  "  their  original  sovereign  capaci- 
ty,'''' and  they  may  act  their  j)Icasuro,  until  another  fac- 
tion, stronger  than  they,  shall  arise  to  make  them  feel,  in 
their  turn,  the  miseries  of  such  licentiousness  and  anar- 
chy. 

Yon  tliink  it  usurpation  for  the  Legislature  of  a  State 
to  claim  for  itself  the  rjght  to  call  a  Convention  to  form 
a  Constitution,  and  to  deny  this  right  to  a  portion  of  its 
citizens.  Then,  Sir,  has  Virginia  been  guilty  of  this  iisiir- 
pation  for  nearly  sixty  years  ?  Strange  that  George 
Washington,  and  Thomas  JciTerson,  and  James  Madison, 
and  John  Marshall,  and  the  other  enlightened  friends  of 
freedom  in  that  State,  did  not  perceive  and  endeavor  to 
remove  this  abomination  !  And  Virginia  had  no  mode  of 
amendment  prescribed  in  her  first,  nor  has  she  in  her  pre- 
sent Constitution  ;  yet,  by  her  laws,  those  who  may  at- 
tempt to  set  up  a  Constitution  of  government,  without 
the  permission  of  the  Legislature,  are  guilty  of  treason,  and 
are  liable  to  be  punished  with  death  !  Tliis,  I  suppose, 
you  would  call  an  Algerine  laic,  but  no  doubt  it  has  pro- 
ved a  wholesome  one,  and  proservcd  the  public  peace 
without  any  infringement  upon  individual  liberty,  though 
you  may  be  disposed  to  consider  it  unworthy  this  age  of 
progress. 

Why  is  it  not  usurpation  lor  the  Legislature  to  claim 
the  exclusive  exercise  of  the  legislative  power  ':  Why 
not  allov/  any  portion  of  the  people  to  resolve  themselves 
into  ''their  original  sovereign  capacity,"  and  to  legislate 
for  the  community  as  well  as  to  form  Constitutions  of 
government  ? 

You  have  confounded  in  your  own  mind  or  would  con- 
found in  the  minds  of  others,  the  great  distinction  be- 
tween revolution  and  reform.  Revolution  is  not  to  be 
regulated  by  law.  This  is  an  appeal  to  force  against  the 
law  and  the  government.  With  regard  to  the  exercise  of 
this  ultimate  right  of  the  people,  you  may  Avell  say, 
'•who  can  establish  forms  to  govern   their  proceedings?" 


21 

In  such  an  appeal  there  is  no  law  to  govern  their  proceed- 
ings ;  it  rides  over  all  the  provisions  of  fundamental  or 
constitutional  law,  and  is  not  to  be  regulated  or  control- 
led by  the  decisions  of  Courts,  or  the  veto  of  magistracy. 
As  well  might  you  attempt  to  put  a  hook  into  the  nose  of 
Leviathan. 

But  the  right  of  reform  is  to  be  exercised  in  conformity 
with  the  fundamental  laws  of  the  State,  and  the  rights  of 
the  government.  And  if  a  portion  of  the  people,  under 
the  pretence  of  reform,  violate  their  allegiance  to  the  gov- 
ernirent,  and  set  up  a  government  upon  their  own  author- 
ity, this  is  rebellion  and  treason,  and  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
government  to  put  it  down. 

Now,  Sir,  if  you  mean  to  put  the  Rhode  Island  contro- 
versy on  the  ground  of  revolution,  and  to  advocate  what 
you  call  the  People's  Constitution  on  that  ground,  with 
what  consistency  do  you  deprecate  an  appeal  to  arms,  or 
suggest,  as  a  better  mode  of  settling  the  controversy,  an 
appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  ? 

By  what  rule  of  law  could  the  Supreme  Court  decide 
a  question  of  revolution  ?  The  necessity  which  alone 
can  justifyr  evolution  is  a  political  (question,  and  can  never 
be  a  legal  question  ?  "Will  you  submit  poliliral  (jucstions 
to  the  Supreme  Court  ?  or  would  they  undertake  to  deter- 
mine such  questions? 

You  say,  the  people  of  Rhode  Island,  ''acted  in  their  orig- 
inal sovereign  capacity."'  They  acted,  therefore,  without 
any  law,  and  against  the  laws  of  the  State,  which  in  your 
opinion,  were  of  no  more  binding  effect  to  control  them, 
than  the  withs  and  the  cords  of  the  Philistines  to  control 
the  strength  of  Samson. 

The  case  you  have  made  is  one  which  is  above  or 
against  the  law,  and  sets  the  law  at  defiance.  If  judges 
are  obliged  to  decide  upon  such  a  case,  as  they  must  de- 
cide according  to  law,  and  cannot  look  to  questions  of  po- 
litical necessity,  they  must  decide  in  favor  of  law  and 
government.     Dorr   had   the  sagacity  to  see  this,  and   he 


22 

scouted  the  idea  of  submitting  his  case  to  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  though  you  have  intimated  the 
contrary.  To  a  gentleman  who  suggested  to  him  this 
course,  before  his  appeal  to  arms,  he  said  :  "  We  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  Supreme  Court,  the  People  will 
settle  this  question  for  themselves." 

Bat  how,  think  you,  would  it  consist  with  the  dignity 
of  a  sovereign  State  to  agree  to  make  a  case  with  its  law- 
less citizens,  and  submit,  to  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  the  question  whether  the  gov- 
ernment which  had  existed  for  nearly  two  hundred  years, 
and  under  which  the  State  had  become  a  member  of  the 
Confederation,  and  a  party  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  whether  this  government  was  a  lawful jgovernment, 
and  had  a  right  to  enact  and  execute  laws  for  its  preserva- 
tion, for  the  punishment  of  treason,  and  for  the  security  of 
the  lives  and  property  of  her  citizens  ?  To  such  degrad- 
ation, I  thank  God,  Rhode  Island  did  not  submit,  and,  I 
trust  in  God,  she  never  will! 

Yet  you  intimate  as  the  reason  why  the  "  Charter  par- 
ty," as  you  are  pleased  to  call  the  government  of  Rhode 
Island,  did  not  adopt  this  course  was  "  from  an  apprehen- 
sion that  the  decision  would  be  against  them,  and  a  desire 
by  military  operations,  martial  law,  and  other  arbitrary 
and  oppressive  measures  to  overawe  the  people  into  the 
substitution  of  a  less  free  and  democratic  Constitution  for 
the  one  heretofore  adopted  by  them." 

Is  this  a  specimen  of  your  impartiality,  or  of  that  zeal 
in  this  new  school  of  democracy,  which  is  as  regardless  of 
truth  as  of  decency  ? 

You  know  that  the  first  appeal  to  arms  was  made  by 
Dorr  and  his  associates.  I  speak  not  now  of  their  military 
array  at  the  organization  of  their  government,  when  they 
marched  through  the  streets  of  Providence  with  about  500 
men  under  arms,  summoned  to  overawe  the  government 
under  the  pretence  of  an  escort.     This  was  itself  an  overt 


2S 

act  of  treason,  not  under  wiiat  Ims  boon  called  the   Alge- 
rine  law  merely,  but  under  the  criminal  code  of  1S36. 

I  refer  to  the  events  of  ^lay,  when  Dorr  returned  from 
New  York  and  summoned  his  military  force  for  offensive  as 
well  as  defensive  operations.  It  was  not  until  he  had  sent 
his  armed  men  into  the  centre  of  Providence,  and  took  from 
thence  two  brass  field  pieces  with  which  he  niip;iit  attack 
the  arsenal  ;  it  was  not  until  he  attemjited  to  fire  upon  the 
arsenal,  that  the  government  and  citizens  were  aroused  to 
arms.  Then  "  the  people's  Governor"  fled  from  the  indig- 
nation he  had  excited,  and  it  was  hoped  that  here  the  ap- 
peal to  arms  would  end.  But  Dorr  found  friends  in  New 
York  and  Connecticut,  and  sympathizers  in  Massachusetts, 
and  was  again  encouraged  to  summon  his  men  to  arms, 
and  to  form  his  camp  at  Chepatchet.  It  was  then  that  the 
people  of  the  State  poured  in  from  every  quarter  to  defend 
the  State  and  the  government,  and  the  'people's  Governor' 
fled  a  second  time!  It  was  when  the  State  was  thus  invaded 
that  martial  law  was  declared  by  the  Legislature,  and  the 
crisis  fully  justified  it.  What  you  are  pleased  to  call  "arbi- 
trary and  oppressive  measures,"  were  necessary  to  protect 
the  lives  and  the  property  of  our  citizens,  and  our  city  from 
devastation  and  plunder.  Yet  you  have  not  a  word  of 
censure  for  those  who  thus  invaded  the  State  ;  all  your 
sympathies  are  enlisted  in  their  behalf,  and  all  your  cen- 
sure is  reserved  for  those  measures  which  so  successfully 
defended  our  State  and  our  city  from  the  invasion,  with 
scarcely  the  sacrifice  of  a  single  life  ! 

But  it  is  worse  than  ridiculous  to  hear  you  talk  of  "  the 
leaders  of  the  Charter  party  overawing  the  people  by 
military  operations!"  How  have  these  military  opera- 
tions been  executed,  but  by  the  peop/c  themselves  ?  The 
people  overawe  the  people  !  ! 

The  proposition  you  speak  of  to  submit  this  controversy 
to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  had  never  the 
sanction  of  Dorr.  lie  spurned  all  terms  of  comj)roniise 
which  did  not  acknowledge  his  Constitution.     His  letter 


24 

published  in  New  York,  after  his  attempt  upon   the  arse- 
nal, is  sufficient  evidence  of  this. 

By  what  rule  of  charity  or  justice  do  iron  impute  such 
motives  to  the  government  and  freeholders  of  Rhode  Is- 
land ?  You  know,  or  ought  to  know,  that  a  majority  of 
the  freeholders,  so  far  from  being  disposed  by  force  to 
hold  on  to  the  Charter  and  the  freehold  qualification,  have 
been  compelled  to  do  so  by  the  act  of  those  men  who 
have  endeavored  to  force  their  Constitution  on  the  State, 
A  majority  of  the  freeholders  voted  for  the  Constitulion 
which  was  proposed  by  the  legal  Convention,  and  which 
gave  to  native  American  citizens  as  free  a  suffrage  as  the  so 
^called  People's  Constitution,  except  that  it  required  a  longer 
residence  in  the  State  of  one  year.  And  you  know,  or  ought 
to  know,  that  at  the  time  you  penned  this  letter,  the 
Legislature  of  Rhode  Island  had  passed  an  act  for  calling 
another  Convention  upon  a  very  liberal  basis.  This  ba- 
sis was  satisfactory  to  the  suffrage  men,  until  they  re- 
ceived other  instructions,  and  were  encouraged,  by  men 
out  of  the  State,  from  such  motives  as  are  most  apparent 
in  your  letter,  to  persevere  in  their  revolutionary  preten- 
sions. It  was  for  this  purpose,  that  these  clam-bakes 
have  been  got  up.  The  gathering,  to  which  your  letter 
was  written,  was  on  the  borders  of  the  State,  and  on  the 
very  day  when  the  people  of  Rhode  Island  were  to  vote 
for  delegates  to  the  Convention ;  and  there  is  no  doubt 
that  this  day  was  fixed  upon  to  withdraw  the  suffrage 
men  from  the  polls  and  prevent  them  from  voting  upon 
this  question.  Such  are  the  means,  adopted  by  yourself 
and  others,  which  may  render  a  resort  to  arms  again  neces- 
sary, in  Rhode  Island  ;  yet  you  deprecate  an  appeal  to 
force  !  ! 

I  have  a  few  words  to  say  upon  the  questions  of  "/ree 
suffrage''  and  "equality  of  representation,"  which  are 
held  up  by  you  as  "great  principles''  of  division  between 
the  friends  and  the  opposers  of  the  suffrage  Constitution  ! 

The  last  is  a  question  about  which   the  freeholders  of 


25 

Providence  county  feel  as  great  an  interest  as  the  non- 
freeholders,  for  they  liave  quite  as  much  at  stake.  Hut 
they  do  not  feel  that  they  have  suffered  any  sucli  prac- 
tical grievance,  in  this  respect,  as  to  justify  revolution  ; 
and  they  trust  that,  by  legitimate  reform,  they  will  be 
able  to  obtain  what  they  ought  to  ask,  and  live  in  peace 
with  their  southern  brethren.  But  this  is  a  very  local 
question,  and  I  do  not  see  how  it  affects  the  United  States 
at  large,  or  Massachusetts  in  particular,  so  as  to  give  you 
a  right  to  interfere  with  it.  If  you  deem  it  your  duty  to 
interfere  wherever  this  inequality  prevails,  you  will  have 
work  enough,  and  will  no  doubt  feel  yourself  called  upon, 
by  a  sacred  regard  for  this  ^^  great  principle,''''  to  endeavor 
to  destroy  the  right  which  Rhode  Island  and  Delaware 
and  the  smaller  States  have  to  an  equal  representation 
with  the  largest  States  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States. 

In  the  Senate  of  Rhode  Island,  under  the  Charter,  all 
the  voters  are  equally  represented,  for  the  Senators  are 
chosen  by  a  general  ticket.  In  this  branch,  therefore, 
there  is  a  greater  equality  of  representation  than  exists 
under  most  of  the  State  Constitutions,  and  the  inequality 
which  exists,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  is  the  result 
of  circumstances,  and  not  of  any  original  inequality  in  the 
provisions  of  the  Charter. 

I  have,  however,  been  not  a  little  surprised  at  the  fact, 
that  those  who  talk  so  much  about  the  democratical  prin- 
ciple are  so  much  disposed  to  forget  it,  when  it  becomes 
necessary  to  secure  to  themselves  the  power,  in  dividing  a 
State  into  senatorial  or  representative  districts.  Then  it 
is  perfectly  lawful  and  proper  to  secure  to  that  party  which 
may  be  a  minority  of  the  people,  the  greater  number  of 
senators  and  representatives. 

If,  by/ree  suffrage^  you  mean  universal  suffrage,  I  sup- 
pose  you  know    the   "  People's   Constitution"  excluded 
persons  who   were   not   white.     If   by   free  suffrage  you 
mean  a  suffrage  extending  beyond  the  freehold  qualifica 
4 


26 

iioii,  there  arc  but  few,  in  our  State,  who  are  not  wilhng 
to  extend  suffrage  very  much  beyond  this;  and  if  our  State 
were  as  large  as  Massachirsetts,  or  had  the  conservatism  of 
her  Judiciary,  there  would  not  be  on  this  point  that  diffi- 
culty in  the  minds  of  many,  which  there  now  is.  Those 
who  believe  that  the  great  security  and  conservatism  of 
our  republican  institutions,  are  the  virtuous  and  intelligent 
yeomanry  which  compose  a  majority  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  are  desirous,  that,  in  the  extension  of  suf- 
frage, this  class  of  the  Rhode  Island  people  should  not  be 
put  down  by  the  stranger  and  sojourner,  or  by  those  who 
may  be  imported  for  the  occasion. 

That  Convention,  which,  in  the  name  of  the  people  of 
Rhode  Island,  adopted  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  declared,  "  that  all  men  having  sufficient  evidence 
of  permanent  common  interest  with,  and  attachment  to  the 
community,  are  entitled  to  the  right  of  suffrage."  A  sim- 
ilar declaration  is  in  the  declaration  of  rights  in  the  Vir- 
ginia Consitution. 

What  this  ^'■sufficient  evidence'^  is,  it  is  for  those  to 
decide,  where  the  Constitution  has  not  decided  it,  who 
are  entrusted  with  the  other  powers  of  government. 

'•The  right  of  self  government  (yon  say)  belongs  to 
man  as  man  and  does  not  depend  upon  the  accidents  of 
birth  or  of  real  or  personal  estate." 

The  right  of  self  government  is  one  thing,  but  the  right 
to  govern  others,  is  another.  The  one  may  belong  to 
man  as  man,  but  die  right  of  suffrage  is  a  right  to  govern 
others,  to  control  the  destinies  of  thousands.  It  is  a  right 
to  take  the  property  of  others,  by  taxes,  and  to  dispose  of 
it  to  such  uses  as  the  majority  may  prescribe.  It  is  a  pol- 
itical power,  upon  the  judicious  and  virtuous  exercise  of 
which  the  well  being  of  the  community  essentially  de- 
pends, and  the  community  have  a  right  so  to  regulate  it, 
as  may  best  promote  the  public  good. 

Thus  thought  and  thus  acted  the  people  of  Rhode  Is- 
land.    The  freehold  qualification  was  their  own  act,  not 


27 

imposed  upon  thorn  by  a  King,  as  it  was  originally  in  Vir- 
ginia. It  made  no  part  of  the  Cliartor,  Inn  \ho  people  of 
Rhode  Island,  finding  that  it  was  necessary  lor  their  secur- 
ity, adopted  it  in  1724. 

You  say  this  right  does  not  depend  "  upon  the  accident 
oi  hirthy  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  free  States  have  no 
right  to  exclude  foreigners  from  voting  in  their  pohtical  af- 
fairs ?  Have  not  all  independent  States  a  right  to  say 
whom  they  will  admit  into,  and  whom  they  will  exclude 
from,  their  body  politic  ?  All  States  have  a  right  to  ex- 
clude foreigners  from  their  dominions,  and  to  admit  them 
on  such  terms  as  they  please.  If  States  arc  willing  to 
suffer  foreigners  to  reside  in  their  territory,  but  are  not 
willing  to  extend  to  them  their  political  privileges,  have 
these  foreigners  a  right,  as  men,  to  these  political  privi- 
leges, in  opposition  to  the  laws  of  the  State,  and  to  assert 
this  right  by  the  right  of  revolution  ? 

This,  Sir,  would  have  been  thought  strange  doctrine  if 
you  had  proclaimed  it  from  the  Supreme  Court  of  Massa- 
chusetts, and  it  is  not  entitled  to  more  reverence,  because 
it  was  communicated  to  a  clam-bake  "gathering,"  by  a 
candidate  for  popular  favor. 

You  may  have  thought  the  doctrine  was  necessary  for 
the  case.  You  may  have  heard  how  many  foreigners 
residing  in  Rhode  Island,  acted  as  "  the  people  of  Rhode 
Island  in  their  original  sovereign  capacity,"  in  the  mak- 
ing and  adoption  of  "  the  People's  Constitution!"' 

We  say  that  persons  born  out  of  the  State,  have  no 
right  to  come  into  the  State,  and  in  violation  of  its  laws,  set 
up  a  natural  right  to  become  members  of  our  body  politic, 
and  enforce  it  by  revolution.  If  they  are  disposed  to  act 
in  their  ^'-original  capacity,"  and  to  claim  their />/>M- 
right,  they  should  go  to  the  land  of  their  birth. 

When  they  came  into  Rhode  Island  they  were  bound 
to  know  our  laws,  and  they  virtually  submitted  to  them, 
and  owed  allegiance  to  the  govennnent  of  the  State. 
They  had  no  right  to  violate  this  allegiance,  because  they 


,      28 

became  dissatisfied  with  those  institutions  to  which  they 
originally  assented  and  came  to  hve  under. 

I  now  come  towards  the  close  of  your  letter.  You 
say,  "it  is  one  of  the  beauties  and  excellencies  of  our 
admirable  system  of  government,  that  it  provides  for  the 
redress  of  all  grievances,  and  the  settlement  of  all  contro- 
versies, without  a  resort  to  physical  force.'''  And  then 
follows  a  lamentation  over  the  military  movements  in 
Rhode  Island,  which  you  think  "  have  added  nothing  to 
the  happiness  of  the  people,  or  the  reputation  of  the 
State." 

Sir,  I  do  not  rejoice  at  the  cause  of  those  military 
movements  ;  and  that  we  have  been  rendered  very  un- 
happy as  a  people,  by  the  threats  and  forcible  attempts  of 
those  with  whom  you  so  much  sympathize,  is  very  true. 
But  I  do  rejoice  that  Rhode  Island  has  manifested  a  por- 
tion of  her  ancient  spirit,  and  I  trust  she  will  be  able  to 
defend  her  soil  against  invasion,  and  establish  and  main- 
tain, for  herself.  Constitutions  for  her  own  government. 

But  what  provision  is  there  "  in  our  admirable  system 
of  government,"  for  such  a  case  as  has  happened  in 
Rhode  Island,"  without  a  resort  to  physical  force  ?^^ 
The  remedies  you  have  pointed  out,  the  resignation  of  a 
Senator  !  and  the  making  a  case  by  agreement  for  the  Su- 
preme Court !  are  not  provided  for  in  our  system  of  gov- 
ernment. 

There  is  a  remedy  provided  "  in  our  admirable  system 
of  government,"  but  it  is  "a  resort  to  force,''^  the  force 
of  the  Union,  to  preserve  the  State  from  "  domestic  vio- 
lence." Read  that  provision  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  then  read  the  43d  number  of  the 
Federalist,  written  by  Mr.  Madison,  which  is  a  commen- 
tary upon  it,  and  you  will  there  see  the  Rhode  Island  case 
supposed  almost  by  the  spirit  of  prophecy,  and  provided 
for. 

"At  first  view,  (said  Mr.  Madison)  it  might  seem  not 
to  square  with  the   republican   theory,  to  suppose  either 


29 

that  a  mojority  have  not  the  ri'^ht,  or  that  a  minority  will 
have  the  force  to  subvert  a  gorcrnmcut,  andconso»|ii(iitly 
that  the  federal  interposition  will  never  be  required  but 
when  it  be  would  improper.  Rut  tlunrctic  reasoninir  in  this, 
as  in  most  cases,  must  be  qualified  by  the  lessons  of  prar- 
tice." 

Did  Mr.  Madison,  and  the  wise  master  builders  who 
framed  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  dare  to 
question  the  ?'7ghi  of  a  majority  to  subvert  a  govcrn- 
Tuent  ?  Had  they  the  folly  to  prefer  the  school  of  prac- 
tical wisdom  to  the  ''  reasoning"  of  theorists  ?  How 
unworthy  were  they  to  lay  the  foundations  of  our  "  ad- 
mirable system  of  government !"  What  a  pity  that  they 
could  not  have  been  initiated  into  the  mysteries  of  democ- 
racy by  Thomas  W.  Dorr,  and  our  clam-bake  orators ! 
Then  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  would  not 
have  been  so  unworthy  this  age  of  progress. 

But  to  proceed  with  Mr.  Madison — "  Why,"  said  he, 
"may  not  illicit  combinations  for  purposes  of  violence,  be 
formed  as  well  by  a  majority  of  a  State,  especially  a 
small  State,  as  by  a  majority  of  a  county,  or  a  district  of 
the  same  State  :  and  if  the  authority  of  the  State  ought 
in  the  latter  case  to  protect  the  local  magistracy,  ouglit 
not  the  federal  authority,  in  the  former,  to  support  the 
authority  of  the  State  V 

Mr.  Madison  asks — "  Is  it  true  that  force  and  right  are 
necessarily  on  the  same  side  in  republican  governments?" 
He  puts  several  cases  to  show  they  are  not,  and  then  the 
following,  which  is  the  Rliode  Island  case,  supposing  the 
Suffrage  men  liad  the  majority  which  they  claim : 

"May  it  not  happen,  in  fine,  that  the  minority  o[  citi- 
zens may  become  a  majority  of  persons  by  the  accession 
of  alien  residents,  of  a  casual  concourse  of  adventurers, 
or  of  those  whom  the  Constitution  of  the  Stale  lias  not 
admitted  to  the  right  of  Suffrage  ?" 

Such  was  the  meaning  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Uni- 
ted States,  when  it  was  formed  and  adopted.     Is  it  now 


30 

to  be  interpreted  in  a  difTcrent  sense,  and  by  those  who 
have  sworn  to  support  it  ? 

Mr.  Madison  thought  the  existence  of  this  power  in  the 
general  government  would  generally  prevent  the  ne- 
cessity of  its  exercise. 

The  government  of  Rhode  Island,  not  wishing  to  re- 
sort to  force,  and  believing  that  this  appeal  to  the  general 
government  would  prevent  a  resort  to  force  by  the  revo- 
Uitionists,  called  upon  the  President  of  the  United  States 
to  protect  the  State  from  "  domestic  violence."  The  an- 
swer of  the  President  was  in  conformity  with  the  Consti- 
tution, but  how  we  have  been  protected,  we  all  know. 

Rhode  Island  has  been  left,  a  prey  to  domestic  and  for- 
eign violence,  to  fight  her  own  battles.  God  be  thanked, 
she  has  nevertheless  been  preserved  !  And  we  trust  the 
same  power  which  scattered  our  enemies,  and  gave  us  our 
bloodless  victories,  will  still  preserve  us.  We  trust  that 
the  land  which  has  been  the  cradle  of  religious  liberty, 
is  not  to  be  the  grave  of  Constitutional  freedom.  We 
trust  that  the  spirit  of  party  will  pause  before  it  sanctions 
doctrines  so  subversive  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  of  the  rights  of  Rhode  Island  as  one  of  the  States 
of  the  Union,  and  so  destructive  of  social  order  and  le- 
gitimate government. 

But,  whatever  may  come,  we  trust  that  Rhode  Island 
will  be  true  to  herself,  and  maintain  those  rights  which 
she  has  never  surrendered — the  right  of  legislating  in 
reference  to  her  internal  concerns,  of  vindicating  her  au- 
thority over  her  own  citizens,  of  judging  for  herself,  and 
establishing  such  republican  Constitutions  as  she  may 
deem  best  fitted  to  promote  her  own  happiness,  and  resist- 
ing all  attempts,  under  whatever  sanction,  to  impose 
upon  her  a  Constitution  which  was  conceived  in  sin  and 
brought  forth  in  iniquity,  and  has  been  the  fruitful  parent 
of  so  many  abominations. 

If  you  are  really  the  friend  of  peace  you  profess  to  be, 
and  would  promote  the  welfare  of  our  State,   you  might 


31 

have  found  a  better  mode  of  accomplishing  both,  tlian  by 
encouraging  with  your  presence  and  your  pen,  those  men 
who  have  aheady  been  so  much  dehided.  You  may 
urge  them  on  to  scenes  of  bloodshed  which  may  bring 
your  own  soul  to  a  fearful  account.  The  cant  of  de- 
mocracy may  here  varnish  over  the  crimes  of  rebellion 
and  treason,  but.  in  that  day  when  the  secrets  of  all 
hearts  shall  be  revealed,  the  crimes  of  unprincipled  am- 
bition will  receive  their  merited  punishment. 
•  Towards  yourself.  Sir,  I  have  no  feelings  of  personal 
hostility,  but  I  have  felt  it  my  duty  to  comment  freely  upon 
a  letter  which  has  been  industriously  circulated  through- 
out our  State,  which  so  misrepresents  facts,  and  advo- 
cates such  dangerous  principles.  May  "even-handed 
justice"  never  "  commend  the  poisoned  chalice  to  your 
own  lips."  May  Massachusetts  never  feel  the  evil  con- 
sequences of  your  doctrines.  She  has  had  her  troubles, 
and  may  have  them  again,  if  your  principles  prevail.  She^ 
had  her  agrarians,  daring  the  rebellion  of  Shays.  When 
Constitutions  and  laws  are  not  strong  enough  to  govern  the 
people,  what  is  to  protect  our  persons  or  our  property  ? 
Free  Suffrage  lies  now  on  the  surface,  but  there  are  other 
principles  and  feelings  which  lie  beneath.  In  Rhode  Is- 
land, we  have  seen  and  heard  enough  to  satisfy  us  that,  in 
the  opinion  of  our  radical  reformers,  it  is  not  the  mere  fabric 
of  government  which  is  out  of  joint,  but  the  whole  fabric 
of  society.  To  ensure  their  success,  they  have  infused 
into  the  poorer  class  those  passions  which  would  not  only 
destroy  our  government,  but  our  property  and  our  lives. 
Methinks,  your  house  is  somewhat  too  high  to  suit  the 
taste  of  the  levellers.  It  might  be  spared  you  awhile,  as 
belonging  to  Monsieur  Egalite  ;  but  the  moment  you 
would  stop  the  ball  which  you  are  now  putting  in  mo- 
tion, you  would  fall,  as  did  many  a  French  revolutionist, 
beneath  the  power  of  a  greater  Jacobin  than  himself. 

In  this  country,  our  liberty  has  most  to  fear,  not  irom 
the  reign  of  law  and  order,  but  from  the  unrestrained  li- 


32 

centiousness  of  the  people.  The  true  friends  of  liberty, 
and  the  best  friends  of  tlie  people  are  those  w?io  would 
strengthen  those  principles  which  are  so  necessary  to  re- 
strain the  violence  of  parties,  to  curb  the  will  of  trium- 
phant majorities,  and  to  give  that  security  to  minorities 
which  will  give  security  to  all. 

One  01;'  THE  Rhode  Island  People. 


THE  LIBRARY  ■[ 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGION/ 


AA    000  87( 


THIS  BOOK   IS  DUE  ON   THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


